Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Aug 17, 2010 1:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

Agree that folks around here are pretty much set on their opinions on the band's "peaks" and nothing will shake them. I just wish folks would stop inferring those who don't share their opinion are somehow mentally lacking. Hell, if it's a "peak" to you, than a "peak" it is.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Aug 17, 2010 2:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

couldn't agree more, sir. (Nice to hear from you again, btw...I've been MIA from the board for a while...no real reason....just haven;t felt much like commenting...) but I do think it's crazy to suggest a person is "wrong" about something as subjective as a particualr Dead year or era....part of what makes the band so interesting is that they sound quite different at different times...songs they did in the Keith era (you make like his acoustic sound better than Brent's Hammond B3) sound very different in the Brent era, etc.

The only thing i think we CAN say for sure is that 1995 sucked serious ass ;-)

(Oh, and 1977 is still the best! ;-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Aug 17, 2010 2:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

If only Jerry had actually had enough energy to suck ass.